Japan cutting off Lend-Lease?

In all frankness, even the complete loss of L-L aid to the USSR in 1941 would not have prevented Barbarossa from failing; by all accounts the Soviets had already stopped the Germans more or less by themselves during the winter of that year, well before Lend Lease took effect. It would only start to matter beginning in 1943 or so when the Red Army finally turned the tide and began hammering the Germans westward. Even if somehow all foreign aid to Russia was cut off indefinitely the USSR would remain unconquerable for the Reich in much the same way the Nationalist China remained unconquerable for Japan: the inadequacy of the Wehrmacht's logistical chain and the battle of Moscow more than amply demonstrated this.
 

Deleted member 1487

In all frankness, even the complete loss of L-L aid to the USSR in 1941 would not have prevented Barbarossa from failing; by all accounts the Soviets had already stopped the Germans more or less by themselves during the winter of that year, well before Lend Lease took effect. It would only start to matter beginning in 1943 or so when the Red Army finally turned the tide and began hammering the Germans westward. Even if somehow all foreign aid to Russia was cut off indefinitely the USSR would remain unconquerable for the Reich in much the same way the Nationalist China remained unconquerable for Japan: the inadequacy of the Wehrmacht's logistical chain and the battle of Moscow more than amply demonstrated this.
Not exactly true. You're right about 1941, though it was more logistics and strategic depth that saved the USSR, plus Hitler's demand to take everything at once without regard to reality that saved the USSR. Stalin committed the most epic blunders imaginable in 1941 and still managed to survive on dumb luck. In 1942 LL was a LOT more relevant and losing it would have been extremely damaging though perhaps not fatal. Going on the offense in late 1942 would have been much more difficult without LL food for instance, which became non-negotiably vital:
https://www.amazon.ca/Hunger-War-Pr...&qid=1470624556&sr=1-1&keywords=9780253017161
Without LL food alone the USSR would have starved in 1942. They were already losing perhaps several million people due to malnutrition by early 1943 even with LL. That's not factoring in the fuel, machine tools, aluminum (most of which came via LL and T-34 engines were built up out of it), explosives (most came via LL again), communications gear/electronics like radar, trucks, etc.
Here is a breakdown of categories and what came in via what route:
http://www.o5m6.de/LL_Routes.html
From October 1st 1941-June 30th 1942 over 1.4 million tons of LL came in. In the next 12 months that tonnage doubled. The Pacific was vital for food imports from the start of 1941 on, the majority of it coming in via the Pacific route until July 1st 1943-June 30th 1944. Thereafter the Pacific route was the majority again. Losing the Pacific route for LL would mean the majority of food cannot come in prior to July 1st 1943, which is fatal to the Soviet military, who subsisted on US Spam, fats, oil, sugar, etc.
 
If the Japanese would have stopped Lend-Lease aid to Vladivostok they would technically have been at war with the Soviets. I'm only seeing such a thing happening if the Japanese somehow made amends with the US over Southeast Asia freeing themselves up for a full-scale attack on Russia in 1941 as was planned.
Umm... Not really.
Most of the ships were US owned and manned, only flying the Soviet flag as a fig-leaf.
If the IJN coast guard started stopping ships and checking contents, letting any real Russian ships go on but confiscating American ones, the Soviets would have very little grounds for complaint. They'd complain, sure, but the Japanese could respond with 'you violated neutrality first'.

Apparently it was quite limited, only operational during summer, and required icebreakers (of which there were not that many) to operate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Route


Also see German attempts to shut it down:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wunderland

Wow. That's wilder than the Murmansk route!!
 
Umm... Not really.
Most of the ships were US owned and manned, only flying the Soviet flag as a fig-leaf.
If the IJN coast guard started stopping ships and checking contents, letting any real Russian ships go on but confiscating American ones, the Soviets would have very little grounds for complaint. They'd complain, sure, but the Japanese could respond with 'you violated neutrality first'.

To blockade another country is an act of war, even if the ships trying to enter its ports are foreign-flagged. This is why the US had to be especially careful during the Cuban Missile Crisis and had to carefully term their actions a "quarantine," amid other measures.
 
To blockade another country is an act of war, even if the ships trying to enter its ports are foreign-flagged. This is why the US had to be especially careful during the Cuban Missile Crisis and had to carefully term their actions a "quarantine," amid other measures.

Japan is supposed to let ships of a country they're at war with sail through their waters without any hindrance? Really? Where does it say THAT?
 
Japan is supposed to let ships of a country they're at war with sail through their waters without any hindrance? Really? Where does it say THAT?

If the US tried to send ships to Vladivostok and the IJN stopped them, it's a blockade of the USSR. Act of War.

Congratulations, US bombers now have a base from which to hit mainland Japan! Unless the Japanese are prepared to invade on the ground this is what would happen.
 
If the US tried to send ships to Vladivostok and the IJN stopped them, it's a blockade of the USSR. Act of War.

Congratulations, US bombers now have a base from which to hit mainland Japan! Unless the Japanese are prepared to invade on the ground this is what would happen.
No, I don't think so.

If Britain stopped German merchant ships on the high seas travelling from e.g. Lisbon to Rio, it's capturing enemy shipping, not 'blockading' Brazil.
Even if the German ships were flying Brazilian colours. Given they'd be German ships with German crew. Right?

So, how is this different?
 
No, I don't think so.

If Britain stopped German merchant ships on the high seas travelling from e.g. Lisbon to Rio, it's capturing enemy shipping, not 'blockading' Brazil.
Even if the German ships were flying Brazilian colours. Given they'd be German ships with German crew. Right?

So, how is this different?

If the Japanese fleet sets up around the Soviet far east and prevents anything from getting in, this is the definition of a blockade. If you're talking commerce raiding on the open sea against US ships alone that's different... but it would also be grossly ineffective at cutting off Lend Lease aid to the Russians.
 
No, I don't think so.

If Britain stopped German merchant ships on the high seas travelling from e.g. Lisbon to Rio, it's capturing enemy shipping, not 'blockading' Brazil.
Even if the German ships were flying Brazilian colours. Given they'd be German ships with German crew. Right?

So, how is this different?

Duhh its the Royal Navy they make the rules ;)
 
If the Japanese fleet sets up around the Soviet far east and prevents anything from getting in, this is the definition of a blockade. If you're talking commerce raiding on the open sea against US ships alone that's different... but it would also be grossly ineffective at cutting off Lend Lease aid to the Russians.
Not 'anything'. I'm specifically talking about letting any true Soviet vessels through - or any true neutrals. My understanding was that the vast majority of the shipping was US owned, operated and manned, only nominally 'Russian'.
 

gaijin

Banned
Not 'anything'. I'm specifically talking about letting any true Soviet vessels through - or any true neutrals. My understanding was that the vast majority of the shipping was US owned, operated and manned, only nominally 'Russian'.

You are missing the point. What you call "only nominally Russian", a figleave etc. etc. is a legal reality. If it's Russian owned, it's a Russian ship regardless of who is manning it, where it is made etc.

You can't sinply board ships, look around and say "well, there are not enough Russian on board, this is not a Russian ship we impound it." If it flies the Russian flag, it is legally a Russian ship. No ifs ands or buts.

Edited to add: when I say Russian I mean Soviet.
 

hipper

Banned
They could avoid seizing the Ship but they could Sieze any American crew on the ship quite legally. in 1941 while Japan was still neutral an RN Cruser stopped a Japanese passenger liner in the Sea of Japan an removed some German passengers from that ship. No one could complain if the Japanese did the same.
 
Even if they seize the ship, what is Stalin going to do about it? Initiating hostilities doesn't solve the problem, but can potentially cost him the war with the Germans at the gates of Moscow and Stalingrad, whilst inviting the Americans to base bombers in the Far East is problematic for the reasons I outlined above.
 
Didn't Japan want to use the USSR as a mediator when attempting to negotiate peace with the West? Forcing war with the USSR would preclude this strategy.
 

Raunchel

Banned
Japan was operating on a shoestring, and cutting off lend-lease, especially when the initial parts of Barbarossa were over, could have led to fighting with the Soviets in the Far East. Even at a relatively small scale, this would have drawn forces and materials away from the main theaters of war, and they didn't have those to spare while already fighting in China, and throughout the Pacific. Furthermore, it might seem unlikely, but it might have been possible for the Americans to make basing arrangements with the Soviets, which could make the whole defensive perimeter a lot harder to pull off successfully.
 
Didn't Japan want to use the USSR as a mediator when attempting to negotiate peace with the West? Forcing war with the USSR would preclude this strategy.

That came late in the war. Earlier when the 'Northern Option' was set aside to defeat the US & seize the "Souther Resource Area" it was a thought that the USSR, or what was left after the Red Army was driven east of the Volga, could be cultivated by Japan & give Japan a little extra stratigic depth. This stratigic depth idea was later tied to continued Soviet Nuetrality in the Pacific war.

The Soviet mediation idea seems have come in the summer of 1945 after The US representatives in Switzerland rejected the Japanese diplomats proposals for a cease fire in the Pacific.
 
Top